CelticsStrong

Around the League => Around the NBA => Topic started by: CelticsElite on February 17, 2018, 11:51:09 PM

Title: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: CelticsElite on February 17, 2018, 11:51:09 PM
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22483506/adam-silver-discusses-potential-playoff-changes-ideas

Silver mentioned still having the best eight teams from each conference making the playoffs, but then seeding those teams 1-16. In that case, if the top two teams were from the same conference it would set up a possible Finals meeting.

"You also would like to have a format where your two best teams are ultimately going to meet in The Finals," Silver said. "You could have a situation where the top two teams in the league are meeting in the conference finals or somewhere else. So we're going to continue to look at that. It's still my hope that we're going to figure out ways."

As has been the case with other 1-16 seeding proposals, there is an issue of travel. With the current playoff format of 2-2-1-1-1 in all rounds, a long first- or second-round long series between teams on opposite coasts would create an unfavorable situation. Also it would require a more balanced schedule so certain teams didn't have an advantage in playoff qualification during the regular season.

"Maybe ultimately you have to add even more days to the season to spread it out a little bit more to deal with the travel," Silver said. "Maybe air travel will get better. All things we'll keep looking at."
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: liam on February 17, 2018, 11:57:53 PM
Bad news for LeBron...
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Tr1boy on February 18, 2018, 12:00:08 AM
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22483506/adam-silver-discusses-potential-playoff-changes-ideas

Silver mentioned still having the best eight teams from each conference making the playoffs, but then seeding those teams 1-16. In that case, if the top two teams were from the same conference it would set up a possible Finals meeting.

"You also would like to have a format where your two best teams are ultimately going to meet in The Finals," Silver said. "You could have a situation where the top two teams in the league are meeting in the conference finals or somewhere else. So we're going to continue to look at that. It's still my hope that we're going to figure out ways."

As has been the case with other 1-16 seeding proposals, there is an issue of travel. With the current playoff format of 2-2-1-1-1 in all rounds, a long first- or second-round long series between teams on opposite coasts would create an unfavorable situation. Also it would require a more balanced schedule so certain teams didn't have an advantage in playoff qualification during the regular season.

"Maybe ultimately you have to add even more days to the season to spread it out a little bit more to deal with the travel," Silver said. "Maybe air travel will get better. All things we'll keep looking at."

What about the team who nets the best record gets to decide which format they would like to play?

And if 1-16 seeding is chosen...1st two rounds format is 3-3-1 due to travel. This would make it even critical for teams to net one of the top 8 records
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Rakulp on February 18, 2018, 12:00:19 AM
File that under stupid ideas.

Bad enough the All Star game is no longer the East vs West, now he wants to do the same to the playoffs?

Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: tazzmaniac on February 18, 2018, 02:11:26 AM
http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22483506/adam-silver-discusses-potential-playoff-changes-ideas

Silver mentioned still having the best eight teams from each conference making the playoffs, but then seeding those teams 1-16. In that case, if the top two teams were from the same conference it would set up a possible Finals meeting.

"You also would like to have a format where your two best teams are ultimately going to meet in The Finals," Silver said. "You could have a situation where the top two teams in the league are meeting in the conference finals or somewhere else. So we're going to continue to look at that. It's still my hope that we're going to figure out ways."

As has been the case with other 1-16 seeding proposals, there is an issue of travel. With the current playoff format of 2-2-1-1-1 in all rounds, a long first- or second-round long series between teams on opposite coasts would create an unfavorable situation. Also it would require a more balanced schedule so certain teams didn't have an advantage in playoff qualification during the regular season.

"Maybe ultimately you have to add even more days to the season to spread it out a little bit more to deal with the travel," Silver said. "Maybe air travel will get better. All things we'll keep looking at."

What about the team who nets the best record gets to decide which format they would like to play?

And if 1-16 seeding is chosen...1st two rounds format is 3-3-1 due to travel. This would make it even critical for teams to net one of the top 8 records
That's even worse than Silver's proposal.  Fans of the lesser teams who make the playoffs might only get to go to one playoff game.  Owners of those teams would lose significant revenue. 
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: mr. dee on February 18, 2018, 03:39:19 AM
I'd be p---ed if that happens. Imagine the Celtics facing the Lakers in the first round. I'd be disgusted.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: GreenEnvy on February 18, 2018, 04:07:01 AM
Hate the idea. No need to reinvent the wheel. Conference playoffs work for every other professional league, no need to change that here. Yes sometimes the best two teams meet in the conference finals, but you want to change the entire format over that?

How sad would it be seeing a Lakers vs Celtics first round matchup?

Definitely one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard.


The only changes that I think needs to be made is the 2-2-1-1-1 vs 2-3-2 format. Why does the Finals change the format? Make it the same across the entire playoffs. I personally like the 2-2-1-1-1 because I don’t believe at any point in a series should the team with HCA play more road games. There are no b2b’s in the Finals, leaving adequate time for travel. The other change is reseeding. If a 6 upsets a 3, the top seed should reap the benefits. This isn’t March Madness. Rank ‘em for the first round. Rank ‘em for the second.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Celtics4ever on February 18, 2018, 04:20:26 AM
The game does not have a big playoff problem, Silver does not need to fix this one...
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: mctyson on February 18, 2018, 07:36:18 AM
File that under stupid ideas.

Bad enough the All Star game is no longer the East vs West, now he wants to do the same to the playoffs?

I agree it is a dumb idea.  Why even have regional divisions or conferences then? 
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: jambr380 on February 18, 2018, 08:28:43 AM
Hate the idea. No need to reinvent the wheel. Conference playoffs work for every other professional league, no need to change that here. Yes sometimes the best two teams meet in the conference finals, but you want to change the entire format over that?

How sad would it be seeing a Lakers vs Celtics first round matchup?

Definitely one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard.


The only changes that I think needs to be made is the 2-2-1-1-1 vs 2-3-2 format. Why does the Finals change the format? Make it the same across the entire playoffs. I personally like the 2-2-1-1-1 because I don’t believe at any point in a series should the team with HCA play more road games. There are no b2b’s in the Finals, leaving adequate time for travel. The other change is reseeding. If a 6 upsets a 3, the top seed should reap the benefits. This isn’t March Madness. Rank ‘em for the first round. Rank ‘em for the second.

I agree with everything you said here - TP.

Very short-sighted move imo. So I guess Silver believes the West will be dominant forever(?) Travel is a major factor - this move shouldn't even be an option until teleportation is widely used  ;)
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: CelticD on February 18, 2018, 08:30:22 AM
Seems like a short sighted overreaction to the dominance of GS and HOU.

This can't be the first time in NBA history where the 2 best teams in the league were in the same conference, and the Finals were a complete drag because of it.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: No Nickname on February 18, 2018, 09:04:24 AM
Hate the idea. No need to reinvent the wheel. Conference playoffs work for every other professional league, no need to change that here. Yes sometimes the best two teams meet in the conference finals, but you want to change the entire format over that?

How sad would it be seeing a Lakers vs Celtics first round matchup?

Definitely one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard.


The only changes that I think needs to be made is the 2-2-1-1-1 vs 2-3-2 format. Why does the Finals change the format? Make it the same across the entire playoffs. I personally like the 2-2-1-1-1 because I don’t believe at any point in a series should the team with HCA play more road games. There are no b2b’s in the Finals, leaving adequate time for travel. The other change is reseeding. If a 6 upsets a 3, the top seed should reap the benefits. This isn’t March Madness. Rank ‘em for the first round. Rank ‘em for the second.

They already changed the Finals format to 2-2-1-1-1 a few years. Buehler? Buehler?
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: bopna on February 18, 2018, 09:54:24 AM
I'd be p---ed if that happens. Imagine the Celtics facing the Lakers in the first round. I'd be disgusted.

Lakers and Celtics should never, ever meet in any playoff series except the Finals...
and yes this format stupidly will allow this.

also the nostalgia and history and beef of previous series would be gone if this happens...plus ofcourse the travel.

Simply too many variables for this to happen...and hence it shouldn't.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Roy H. on February 18, 2018, 10:15:50 AM
Not all change is a good thing.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: GreenShooter on February 18, 2018, 10:43:52 AM
Yeah, dumb idea. If they're thinking about doing that then they'll need to play more than just a home and home series with the other conferences to make the standings more accurate.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: seancally on February 18, 2018, 10:44:17 AM
Lots of biased Celtics fans here who can’t imagine playing the Lakers in the first round. You know what would be worse? Being a Rockets fan and having to play the warriors in the Western Conference Finals, lose in 7, and watch the warriors steamroll some sad eastern conference champion.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: PhoSita on February 18, 2018, 10:54:42 AM
That's the most logical and best way to do it.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Roy H. on February 18, 2018, 11:16:20 AM
Lots of biased Celtics fans here who can’t imagine playing the Lakers in the first round. You know what would be worse? Being a Rockets fan and having to play the warriors in the Western Conference Finals, lose in 7, and watch the warriors steamroll some sad eastern conference champion.

Why is losing in the WCF worse than losing in the Finals? Do fans really like being runners up that much?
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: RodyTur10 on February 18, 2018, 11:37:52 AM
Lots of biased Celtics fans here who can’t imagine playing the Lakers in the first round. You know what would be worse? Being a Rockets fan and having to play the warriors in the Western Conference Finals, lose in 7, and watch the warriors steamroll some sad eastern conference champion.

Why is losing in the WCF worse than losing in the Finals? Do fans really like being runners up that much?

I think so. Being in the NBA Finals means something. I can name all the runner-ups since I started following basketball. I don't think I can do the same for all conference finalists.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Roy H. on February 18, 2018, 11:45:42 AM
Lots of biased Celtics fans here who can’t imagine playing the Lakers in the first round. You know what would be worse? Being a Rockets fan and having to play the warriors in the Western Conference Finals, lose in 7, and watch the warriors steamroll some sad eastern conference champion.

Why is losing in the WCF worse than losing in the Finals? Do fans really like being runners up that much?

I think so. Being in the NBA Finals means something. I can name all the runner-ups since I started following basketball. I don't think I can do the same for all conference finalists.

As a fan, I’d rather not lose in the Finals. 2010 is way more bitter to me than 2009, 2011, or 2012. I know a lot of Pats fans who are crushed by the Super Bowl losses moreso than the AFC Finals defeats.

But ultimately, losing is losing.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: nickagneta on February 18, 2018, 11:45:47 AM
I think this is more a reaction of last year's playoffs where there were like 2 competitive series during the whole playoffs. I think it killed television ratings and revenue. This would allow for more competitive series during each round and, hopefully, longer series.

Just my opinion on why Silver's proposal would even be made. Follow the money, guys. This has nothing to do with fairness.

I hate the idea. Just keep it like it is.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: No Nickname on February 18, 2018, 12:14:56 PM
I think this is more a reaction of last year's playoffs where there were like 2 competitive series during the whole playoffs. I think it killed television ratings and revenue. This would allow for more competitive series during each round and, hopefully, longer series.

Just my opinion on why Silver's proposal would even be made. Follow the money, guys. This has nothing to do with fairness.

I hate the idea. Just keep it like it is.

Not sure I follow that logic (I know you’re not necessarily saying it’s your logic, but the league’s). If the series weren’t “competitive” (I’m assuming that means series that went to 6-7 games) the seeding doesn’t really impact that. Eventually the better, i.e. winning, teams will ultimately face each other in later rounds.

If teams in rounds 2 and 3 are still sweeping opponents it just means there are a lot of different levels of quality in the league. Perhaps four different tiers amongst the playoff teams.

Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: JHTruth on February 18, 2018, 12:28:41 PM
Might legit give up on the NBA if they do this. Couldn't imagine doing something more stupid to the fans of the league. I'm not some cranky purist but this is an insane idea..
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: nickagneta on February 18, 2018, 01:37:22 PM
I think this is more a reaction of last year's playoffs where there were like 2 competitive series during the whole playoffs. I think it killed television ratings and revenue. This would allow for more competitive series during each round and, hopefully, longer series.

Just my opinion on why Silver's proposal would even be made. Follow the money, guys. This has nothing to do with fairness.

I hate the idea. Just keep it like it is.

Not sure I follow that logic (I know you’re not necessarily saying it’s your logic, but the league’s). If the series weren’t “competitive” (I’m assuming that means series that went to 6-7 games) the seeding doesn’t really impact that. Eventually the better, i.e. winning, teams will ultimately face each other in later rounds.

If teams in rounds 2 and 3 are still sweeping opponents it just means there are a lot of different levels of quality in the league. Perhaps four different tiers amongst the playoff teams.
In the 1st round the 8-9 series, the 7-10 series and the 6-11 series would be very competitive. In the next round the competition ramps up with all series being competitive. Then of course the Final 4 would hopefully for the NBA jave the best 4 teams in the league. But I think this format might give the league mpre 6-7 game series and then, more advertising revenue and ratings.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Moranis on February 18, 2018, 01:52:23 PM
I think this is more a reaction of last year's playoffs where there were like 2 competitive series during the whole playoffs. I think it killed television ratings and revenue. This would allow for more competitive series during each round and, hopefully, longer series.

Just my opinion on why Silver's proposal would even be made. Follow the money, guys. This has nothing to do with fairness.

I hate the idea. Just keep it like it is.

Not sure I follow that logic (I know you’re not necessarily saying it’s your logic, but the league’s). If the series weren’t “competitive” (I’m assuming that means series that went to 6-7 games) the seeding doesn’t really impact that. Eventually the better, i.e. winning, teams will ultimately face each other in later rounds.

If teams in rounds 2 and 3 are still sweeping opponents it just means there are a lot of different levels of quality in the league. Perhaps four different tiers amongst the playoff teams.
In the 1st round the 8-9 series, the 7-10 series and the 6-11 series would be very competitive. In the next round the competition ramps up with all series being competitive. Then of course the Final 4 would hopefully for the NBA jave the best 4 teams in the league. But I think this format might give the league mpre 6-7 game series and then, more advertising revenue and ratings.
except the first round series by and large were competitive last year.  Only GS and Cleveland steamrolled teams but most series were quite good.  I mean every other eastern 1st round went 6, the other western series went 5, 6, and 7.  The other conference semis went 6 and 7.  If anything changing the seeding will make that all wotse not better.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Big333223 on February 18, 2018, 05:17:39 PM
I don't know that this is a problem that needs fixing, but if we're ignoring conferences in seeding then why are we taking them into account when picking the pool? Feels half-assed.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: hpantazo on February 18, 2018, 05:24:28 PM
Its not a problem that needs fixing, but I think Silver may see this as a step in globalizing the NBA. First break down the meaning of the current divisions and conferences in the North America, let people get used to it, and then as the NBA begins to include Europe and Asia, introduce 'new' conferences: North America, Europe, and Asia. It makes things much simpler without the current relevance of divisions and conferences in that exist now in the NBA.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: PAOBoston on February 18, 2018, 06:26:11 PM
100% like this idea.

I hate having divisions/conferences. Have one group for all teams, just like most leagues around the world do it. Top 16 records get in.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: gouki88 on February 18, 2018, 06:48:32 PM
Its not a problem that needs fixing, but I think Silver may see this as a step in globalizing the NBA. First break down the meaning of the current divisions and conferences in the North America, let people get used to it, and then as the NBA begins to include Europe and Asia, introduce 'new' conferences: North America, Europe, and Asia. It makes things much simpler without the current relevance of divisions and conferences in that exist now in the NBA.
Ewwwww
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: More Banners on February 18, 2018, 06:59:32 PM
They'd never reduce playoff games, but I'd give best record in each conference a bye, and have 1 more lotto team in each conference. Reward top records while making it harder to make playoffs.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: slightly biased bias fan on February 18, 2018, 08:00:29 PM
100% like this idea.

I hate having divisions/conferences. Have one group for all teams, just like most leagues around the world do it. Top 16 records get in.

The NBA isn't like most leagues in the world.

Most leagues play each team evenly so home and away, the NBA doesn't. Having the so call best 16 teams wouldn't be fair at all because some divisions are much weaker than others and having 30 teams can't translate into 82 game a season home and away and having one group of 30 where teams play each other evenly would make playoffs redundant as the team who is the top seed should be crowned NBA champion automatically. My idea was that the NBA should revert to an MLB system where division winner go directly into the playoffs and teams with the highest winning percentage go into the Wild Card playoffs, thus giving every team a fair shake.

I am starting to get worried about the NBA as they almost have too much control, they seem to become the experiment league to the point where all tradition and rational thought is being thrown out the window. They have already had sleeve jerseys in official NBA games, Sponsors on NBA jersey's now, removed the East vs West all star game, serious talks about a 4 point line and having a team in the UK...eventually what is left of any type of tradition or history?
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: RodyTur10 on February 18, 2018, 08:40:36 PM
They'd never reduce playoff games, but I'd give best record in each conference a bye, and have 1 more lotto team in each conference. Reward top records while making it harder to make playoffs.

They'd never reduce playoff games, because of the money. But best-of-7 series have a lot of irrelevant games by nature in comparison to a best-of-5 series. I have taken all the playoffs since 2010 (that's 120 series and 667 games in total) and here are some statistics from that.

In the playoffs 61% of the series, the team that as first team wins 3 games will have a 3-0 or 3-1 (coming from 2-1, no double counts) score. Remarkably from the 73 times this happened, only 3 times! the losing team was able to come back from that and win the series (no team came back from 0-3). That's an incredibly low chance of 4,1% that a best-of-7 series delivers a different winner than a best-of-5.

So 39% of the series go to a 2-2 tie after 4 games. You'd think that here a best-of-7 makes a big difference. However, of the 47 times a team lost game 5 it was able to win the series 9 times. That's only 19% of the cases. 

Together there is only an exact 10% chance for a comeback when a team falls behind to 3 losses. This means that in 90% a best-of-5 series resulted in the same winner as a best-of-7 series.

Had they played a best-of-5 in those 8 years, they hadn't played 667 games but only 489 (reduction of 27% of playoff games). The 178 games difference consists of a lot of irrelevant games, where games were just played to finish the series while the losing team had no chance or only a small chance for a comeback.

An average playoff series in a best-of-7 consists of 5.6 games. In a best-of-5 this is 4.1 games. That's 1.5 game less per series. This allows for a lot more rest for players and therefore reduce injuries and increase the level of play.

The playoffs at max take 65 days. Now teams get scheduled with a lot of games with only a 1 day rest, sometimes that's a travel day. With a best-of-5 series you can guarantee every team 2 days rest for every game and every series 1 day rest extra (I've checked this). Also when doing this I took in account a television-friendly-balanced schedule.

As an example the 2017 NBA Playoffs would have at least 2 games every night for the first 15 days (with exception for one night that has 1 game, because of the Cleveland-Indiana series, 3-0). For the next 16 days every night has at least 1 game (with exception for one night due to Cleveland and Golden State both winning with 3-0).

Of course when the Conference finals have begun there are nights when there's no game and the NBA Finals basically have the same schedule as now.

I know it won't happen, but I'm strongly advocating for a best-of-5 series. In 90% of the cases you have the same winner and teams rarely come back (only 4,1%) from a 3-0 or 3-1 deficit. You get rid of a lot of basically irrelevant games. Teams get at least 2 days rest for every game, which lowers chance of injuries and prevents teams to get exhausted. It makes the playoffs more exciting.

Teams don't get punished anymore for having played a tough opponent. You don't want situations like last year where Cleveland had 9 days of rest when the Conference finals started and Boston only 1! That's just dishonest competition.


 
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: nickagneta on February 18, 2018, 09:00:23 PM
They'd never reduce playoff games, but I'd give best record in each conference a bye, and have 1 more lotto team in each conference. Reward top records while making it harder to make playoffs.

They'd never reduce playoff games, because of the money. But best-of-7 series have a lot of irrelevant games by nature in comparison to a best-of-5 series. I have taken all the playoffs since 2010 (that's 120 series and 667 games in total) and here are some statistics from that.

In the playoffs 61% of the series, the team that as first team wins 3 games will have a 3-0 or 3-1 (coming from 2-1, no double counts) score. Remarkably from the 73 times this happened, only 3 times! the losing team was able to come back from that and win the series (no team came back from 0-3). That's an incredibly low chance of 4,1% that a best-of-7 series delivers a different winner than a best-of-5.

So 39% of the series go to a 2-2 tie after 4 games. You'd think that here a best-of-7 makes a big difference. However, of the 47 times a team lost game 5 it was able to win the series 9 times. That's only 19% of the cases. 

Together there is only an exact 10% chance for a comeback when a team falls behind to 3 losses. This means that in 90% a best-of-5 series resulted in the same winner as a best-of-7 series.

Had they played a best-of-5 in those 8 years, they hadn't played 667 games but only 489 (reduction of 27% of playoff games). The 178 games difference consists of a lot of irrelevant games, where games were just played to finish the series while the losing team had no chance or only a small chance for a comeback.

An average playoff series in a best-of-7 consists of 5.6 games. In a best-of-5 this is 4.1 games. That's 1.5 game less per series. This allows for a lot more rest for players and therefore reduce injuries and increase the level of play.

The playoffs at max take 65 days. Now teams get scheduled with a lot of games with only a 1 day rest, sometimes that's a travel day. With a best-of-5 series you can guarantee every team 2 days rest for every game and every series 1 day rest extra (I've checked this). Also when doing this I took in account a television-friendly-balanced schedule.

As an example the 2017 NBA Playoffs would have at least 2 games every night for the first 15 days (with exception for one night that has 1 game, because of the Cleveland-Indiana series, 3-0). For the next 16 days every night has at least 1 game (with exception for one night due to Cleveland and Golden State both winning with 3-0).

Of course when the Conference finals have begun there are nights when there's no game and the NBA Finals basically have the same schedule as now.

I know it won't happen, but I'm strongly advocating for a best-of-5 series. In 90% of the cases you have the same winner and teams rarely come back (only 4,1%) from a 3-0 or 3-1 deficit. You get rid of a lot of basically irrelevant games. Teams get at least 2 days rest for every game, which lowers chance of injuries and prevents teams to get exhausted. It makes the playoffs more exciting.

Teams don't get punished anymore for having played a tough opponent. You don't want situations like last year where Cleveland had 9 days of rest when the Conference finals started and Boston only 1! That's just dishonest competition.


 
Lots of thought and research but ultimately, your first line is what counts.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: hpantazo on February 18, 2018, 09:43:35 PM
They'd never reduce playoff games, but I'd give best record in each conference a bye, and have 1 more lotto team in each conference. Reward top records while making it harder to make playoffs.

They'd never reduce playoff games, because of the money. But best-of-7 series have a lot of irrelevant games by nature in comparison to a best-of-5 series. I have taken all the playoffs since 2010 (that's 120 series and 667 games in total) and here are some statistics from that.

In the playoffs 61% of the series, the team that as first team wins 3 games will have a 3-0 or 3-1 (coming from 2-1, no double counts) score. Remarkably from the 73 times this happened, only 3 times! the losing team was able to come back from that and win the series (no team came back from 0-3). That's an incredibly low chance of 4,1% that a best-of-7 series delivers a different winner than a best-of-5.

So 39% of the series go to a 2-2 tie after 4 games. You'd think that here a best-of-7 makes a big difference. However, of the 47 times a team lost game 5 it was able to win the series 9 times. That's only 19% of the cases. 

Together there is only an exact 10% chance for a comeback when a team falls behind to 3 losses. This means that in 90% a best-of-5 series resulted in the same winner as a best-of-7 series.

Had they played a best-of-5 in those 8 years, they hadn't played 667 games but only 489 (reduction of 27% of playoff games). The 178 games difference consists of a lot of irrelevant games, where games were just played to finish the series while the losing team had no chance or only a small chance for a comeback.

An average playoff series in a best-of-7 consists of 5.6 games. In a best-of-5 this is 4.1 games. That's 1.5 game less per series. This allows for a lot more rest for players and therefore reduce injuries and increase the level of play.

The playoffs at max take 65 days. Now teams get scheduled with a lot of games with only a 1 day rest, sometimes that's a travel day. With a best-of-5 series you can guarantee every team 2 days rest for every game and every series 1 day rest extra (I've checked this). Also when doing this I took in account a television-friendly-balanced schedule.

As an example the 2017 NBA Playoffs would have at least 2 games every night for the first 15 days (with exception for one night that has 1 game, because of the Cleveland-Indiana series, 3-0). For the next 16 days every night has at least 1 game (with exception for one night due to Cleveland and Golden State both winning with 3-0).

Of course when the Conference finals have begun there are nights when there's no game and the NBA Finals basically have the same schedule as now.

I know it won't happen, but I'm strongly advocating for a best-of-5 series. In 90% of the cases you have the same winner and teams rarely come back (only 4,1%) from a 3-0 or 3-1 deficit. You get rid of a lot of basically irrelevant games. Teams get at least 2 days rest for every game, which lowers chance of injuries and prevents teams to get exhausted. It makes the playoffs more exciting.

Teams don't get punished anymore for having played a tough opponent. You don't want situations like last year where Cleveland had 9 days of rest when the Conference finals started and Boston only 1! That's just dishonest competition.


 
Lots of thought and research but ultimately, your first line is what counts.


Unfortunately, yes. If anything, we'll get even more playoff games in the future to increase profits.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: CelticsElite on February 19, 2018, 03:51:43 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWVUHNUW4AESYRD?format=jpg)

Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: bopna on February 19, 2018, 04:11:36 AM
I know the Cs dont hang conference banners but some of the small market teams do...it gives em pride that hanging out in the ECF for example and winning it gives the team something rather than nothing..

In the so called new format what then do you distiguish the top 2 teams that come out...we present you the 8th seed Portland trail blazers, vs the 14th seed Thunder invthe NBA finals.....yuck. No distinction of being atleast a Conference champion....now dont say it couldn't happen because one tweek of lebron's ankle and the cavs are done...an upset of Houston or GS in round one or two and its kapooff...
The league will then review the [dang] thing the following yr because it was a disaster...tbh just leave things the way they are...Jordan and the Bulls dominated the West in the 90s and not an ounce of outcry happened...the league is just fine right now.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: celticsclay on February 19, 2018, 04:35:57 AM
I think this is more a reaction of last year's playoffs where there were like 2 competitive series during the whole playoffs. I think it killed television ratings and revenue. This would allow for more competitive series during each round and, hopefully, longer series.

Just my opinion on why Silver's proposal would even be made. Follow the money, guys. This has nothing to do with fairness.

I hate the idea. Just keep it like it is.

Not sure I follow that logic (I know you’re not necessarily saying it’s your logic, but the league’s). If the series weren’t “competitive” (I’m assuming that means series that went to 6-7 games) the seeding doesn’t really impact that. Eventually the better, i.e. winning, teams will ultimately face each other in later rounds.

If teams in rounds 2 and 3 are still sweeping opponents it just means there are a lot of different levels of quality in the league. Perhaps four different tiers amongst the playoff teams.
In the 1st round the 8-9 series, the 7-10 series and the 6-11 series would be very competitive. In the next round the competition ramps up with all series being competitive. Then of course the Final 4 would hopefully for the NBA jave the best 4 teams in the league. But I think this format might give the league mpre 6-7 game series and then, more advertising revenue and ratings.
except the first round series by and large were competitive last year.  Only GS and Cleveland steamrolled teams but most series were quite good.  I mean every other eastern 1st round went 6, the other western series went 5, 6, and 7.  The other conference semis went 6 and 7.  If anything changing the seeding will make that all wotse not better.

I think there was 10 less playoff games last year than the year before and the salary cap went down by a million dollars because there were so few games. That is why this is being proposed.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: PAOBoston on February 19, 2018, 08:17:29 AM
100% like this idea.

I hate having divisions/conferences. Have one group for all teams, just like most leagues around the world do it. Top 16 records get in.

The NBA isn't like most leagues in the world.

Most leagues play each team evenly so home and away, the NBA doesn't. Having the so call best 16 teams wouldn't be fair at all because some divisions are much weaker than others and having 30 teams can't translate into 82 game a season home and away and having one group of 30 where teams play each other evenly would make playoffs redundant as the team who is the top seed should be crowned NBA champion automatically. My idea was that the NBA should revert to an MLB system where division winner go directly into the playoffs and teams with the highest winning percentage go into the Wild Card playoffs, thus giving every team a fair shake.

I am starting to get worried about the NBA as they almost have too much control, they seem to become the experiment league to the point where all tradition and rational thought is being thrown out the window. They have already had sleeve jerseys in official NBA games, Sponsors on NBA jersey's now, removed the East vs West all star game, serious talks about a 4 point line and having a team in the UK...eventually what is left of any type of tradition or history?
Your argument of it wouldn't be fair because some divisions are weaker is hogwash. That's the entire point. It would allow for the best teams to be in the playoffs. Divisions are pointless. I can rationalize having just 2 conferences and no divisions.

As for the schedule, they would have to find a way to rebalance it.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Onslaught on February 19, 2018, 08:47:29 AM
Did they NBA care in the 80’s when the Lakers only really had the Rockets to get past and the East was top heavy? Teams in the east had to kill themselves to get to the Finals and the West was a cake walk in comparison.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Big333223 on February 19, 2018, 10:13:09 AM
100% like this idea.

I hate having divisions/conferences. Have one group for all teams, just like most leagues around the world do it. Top 16 records get in.

The NBA isn't like most leagues in the world.

Most leagues play each team evenly so home and away, the NBA doesn't. Having the so call best 16 teams wouldn't be fair at all because some divisions are much weaker than others and having 30 teams can't translate into 82 game a season home and away and having one group of 30 where teams play each other evenly would make playoffs redundant as the team who is the top seed should be crowned NBA champion automatically. My idea was that the NBA should revert to an MLB system where division winner go directly into the playoffs and teams with the highest winning percentage go into the Wild Card playoffs, thus giving every team a fair shake.

I am starting to get worried about the NBA as they almost have too much control, they seem to become the experiment league to the point where all tradition and rational thought is being thrown out the window. They have already had sleeve jerseys in official NBA games, Sponsors on NBA jersey's now, removed the East vs West all star game, serious talks about a 4 point line and having a team in the UK...eventually what is left of any type of tradition or history?
Your argument of it wouldn't be fair because some divisions are weaker is hogwash. That's the entire point. It would allow for the best teams to be in the playoffs. Divisions are pointless. I can rationalize having just 2 conferences and no divisions.

As for the schedule, they would have to find a way to rebalance it.

I think what he's saying is that, because some divisions are weaker than others, the record is not necessarily reflective of how good the team is because they've played weaker or stronger competition to get to that record.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: nickagneta on February 19, 2018, 11:08:51 AM
100% like this idea.

I hate having divisions/conferences. Have one group for all teams, just like most leagues around the world do it. Top 16 records get in.

The NBA isn't like most leagues in the world.

Most leagues play each team evenly so home and away, the NBA doesn't. Having the so call best 16 teams wouldn't be fair at all because some divisions are much weaker than others and having 30 teams can't translate into 82 game a season home and away and having one group of 30 where teams play each other evenly would make playoffs redundant as the team who is the top seed should be crowned NBA champion automatically. My idea was that the NBA should revert to an MLB system where division winner go directly into the playoffs and teams with the highest winning percentage go into the Wild Card playoffs, thus giving every team a fair shake.

I am starting to get worried about the NBA as they almost have too much control, they seem to become the experiment league to the point where all tradition and rational thought is being thrown out the window. They have already had sleeve jerseys in official NBA games, Sponsors on NBA jersey's now, removed the East vs West all star game, serious talks about a 4 point line and having a team in the UK...eventually what is left of any type of tradition or history?
Your argument of it wouldn't be fair because some divisions are weaker is hogwash. That's the entire point. It would allow for the best teams to be in the playoffs. Divisions are pointless. I can rationalize having just 2 conferences and no divisions.

As for the schedule, they would have to find a way to rebalance it.

I think what he's saying is that, because some divisions are weaker than others, the record is not necessarily reflective of how good the team is because they've played weaker or stronger competition to get to that record.
Yeah but with 82 games and 30 teams, you are never going to have balanced scheduling so someone is always going to have easier schedules and someone is always going to have harder schedules.

And with the league always thinking about future expansion, that imbalance will never change. And the league certainly isn't going to have just a 60 game regular season or increase the season by 3 weeks to add on another 8 games. The pkayers union would never go for it.

So you're always going to have divisions and conferences.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: hodgy03038 on February 19, 2018, 11:38:15 AM
Divisions are totally irrelevant now. They mean nothing unless you want to claim division winner for a banner. The playoffs are determined by top 8 in the conference with no consideration about division for anything. They should do away with divisions.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: KGs Knee on February 19, 2018, 12:32:56 PM
The NBA doesn't need change anything. There's nothing wrong with the playoff format as is.

If you want to be champion, you have to beat all the team's you face, simple as that.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Moranis on February 19, 2018, 03:59:56 PM
I think this is more a reaction of last year's playoffs where there were like 2 competitive series during the whole playoffs. I think it killed television ratings and revenue. This would allow for more competitive series during each round and, hopefully, longer series.

Just my opinion on why Silver's proposal would even be made. Follow the money, guys. This has nothing to do with fairness.

I hate the idea. Just keep it like it is.

Not sure I follow that logic (I know you’re not necessarily saying it’s your logic, but the league’s). If the series weren’t “competitive” (I’m assuming that means series that went to 6-7 games) the seeding doesn’t really impact that. Eventually the better, i.e. winning, teams will ultimately face each other in later rounds.

If teams in rounds 2 and 3 are still sweeping opponents it just means there are a lot of different levels of quality in the league. Perhaps four different tiers amongst the playoff teams.
In the 1st round the 8-9 series, the 7-10 series and the 6-11 series would be very competitive. In the next round the competition ramps up with all series being competitive. Then of course the Final 4 would hopefully for the NBA jave the best 4 teams in the league. But I think this format might give the league mpre 6-7 game series and then, more advertising revenue and ratings.
except the first round series by and large were competitive last year.  Only GS and Cleveland steamrolled teams but most series were quite good.  I mean every other eastern 1st round went 6, the other western series went 5, 6, and 7.  The other conference semis went 6 and 7.  If anything changing the seeding will make that all wotse not better.

I think there was 10 less playoff games last year than the year before and the salary cap went down by a million dollars because there were so few games. That is why this is being proposed.
Cleveland might have lost more than 1 game switching things up, but Golden State was going to steamroll pretty much everyone such that some sort of change wouldn't have done much to the overall games, especially if you make more 1st round series more uncompetitive.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Moranis on February 19, 2018, 04:03:20 PM
Did they NBA care in the 80’s when the Lakers only really had the Rockets to get past and the East was top heavy? Teams in the east had to kill themselves to get to the Finals and the West was a cake walk in comparison.
the East had 2 real contenders in the 80's. It wasn't that top heavy.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: celticsclay on February 19, 2018, 04:20:14 PM
I think this is more a reaction of last year's playoffs where there were like 2 competitive series during the whole playoffs. I think it killed television ratings and revenue. This would allow for more competitive series during each round and, hopefully, longer series.

Just my opinion on why Silver's proposal would even be made. Follow the money, guys. This has nothing to do with fairness.

I hate the idea. Just keep it like it is.

Not sure I follow that logic (I know you’re not necessarily saying it’s your logic, but the league’s). If the series weren’t “competitive” (I’m assuming that means series that went to 6-7 games) the seeding doesn’t really impact that. Eventually the better, i.e. winning, teams will ultimately face each other in later rounds.

If teams in rounds 2 and 3 are still sweeping opponents it just means there are a lot of different levels of quality in the league. Perhaps four different tiers amongst the playoff teams.
In the 1st round the 8-9 series, the 7-10 series and the 6-11 series would be very competitive. In the next round the competition ramps up with all series being competitive. Then of course the Final 4 would hopefully for the NBA jave the best 4 teams in the league. But I think this format might give the league mpre 6-7 game series and then, more advertising revenue and ratings.
except the first round series by and large were competitive last year.  Only GS and Cleveland steamrolled teams but most series were quite good.  I mean every other eastern 1st round went 6, the other western series went 5, 6, and 7.  The other conference semis went 6 and 7.  If anything changing the seeding will make that all wotse not better.

I think there was 10 less playoff games last year than the year before and the salary cap went down by a million dollars because there were so few games. That is why this is being proposed.
Cleveland might have lost more than 1 game switching things up, but Golden State was going to steamroll pretty much everyone such that some sort of change wouldn't have done much to the overall games, especially if you make more 1st round series more uncompetitive.

Yeah I don't disagree with you that this may not result in better series, just saying the league losing money on last years playoffs is 100% the reason it is being discussed. This year it could theoretically make for a few better series but that would change year to year
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: tazzmaniac on February 19, 2018, 04:31:57 PM
I think this is more a reaction of last year's playoffs where there were like 2 competitive series during the whole playoffs. I think it killed television ratings and revenue. This would allow for more competitive series during each round and, hopefully, longer series.

Just my opinion on why Silver's proposal would even be made. Follow the money, guys. This has nothing to do with fairness.

I hate the idea. Just keep it like it is.

Not sure I follow that logic (I know you’re not necessarily saying it’s your logic, but the league’s). If the series weren’t “competitive” (I’m assuming that means series that went to 6-7 games) the seeding doesn’t really impact that. Eventually the better, i.e. winning, teams will ultimately face each other in later rounds.

If teams in rounds 2 and 3 are still sweeping opponents it just means there are a lot of different levels of quality in the league. Perhaps four different tiers amongst the playoff teams.
In the 1st round the 8-9 series, the 7-10 series and the 6-11 series would be very competitive. In the next round the competition ramps up with all series being competitive. Then of course the Final 4 would hopefully for the NBA jave the best 4 teams in the league. But I think this format might give the league mpre 6-7 game series and then, more advertising revenue and ratings.
except the first round series by and large were competitive last year.  Only GS and Cleveland steamrolled teams but most series were quite good.  I mean every other eastern 1st round went 6, the other western series went 5, 6, and 7.  The other conference semis went 6 and 7.  If anything changing the seeding will make that all wotse not better.

I think there was 10 less playoff games last year than the year before and the salary cap went down by a million dollars because there were so few games. That is why this is being proposed.
Cleveland might have lost more than 1 game switching things up, but Golden State was going to steamroll pretty much everyone such that some sort of change wouldn't have done much to the overall games, especially if you make more 1st round series more uncompetitive.

Yeah I don't disagree with you that this may not result in better series, just saying the league losing money on last years playoffs is 100% the reason it is being discussed. This year it could theoretically make for a few better series but that would change year to year
How did the league lose money on the playoffs?  Or do you really mean that they didn't make as much money as they would have liked too?   
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: celticsclay on February 19, 2018, 09:07:15 PM
I think this is more a reaction of last year's playoffs where there were like 2 competitive series during the whole playoffs. I think it killed television ratings and revenue. This would allow for more competitive series during each round and, hopefully, longer series.

Just my opinion on why Silver's proposal would even be made. Follow the money, guys. This has nothing to do with fairness.

I hate the idea. Just keep it like it is.

Not sure I follow that logic (I know you’re not necessarily saying it’s your logic, but the league’s). If the series weren’t “competitive” (I’m assuming that means series that went to 6-7 games) the seeding doesn’t really impact that. Eventually the better, i.e. winning, teams will ultimately face each other in later rounds.

If teams in rounds 2 and 3 are still sweeping opponents it just means there are a lot of different levels of quality in the league. Perhaps four different tiers amongst the playoff teams.
In the 1st round the 8-9 series, the 7-10 series and the 6-11 series would be very competitive. In the next round the competition ramps up with all series being competitive. Then of course the Final 4 would hopefully for the NBA jave the best 4 teams in the league. But I think this format might give the league mpre 6-7 game series and then, more advertising revenue and ratings.
except the first round series by and large were competitive last year.  Only GS and Cleveland steamrolled teams but most series were quite good.  I mean every other eastern 1st round went 6, the other western series went 5, 6, and 7.  The other conference semis went 6 and 7.  If anything changing the seeding will make that all wotse not better.

I think there was 10 less playoff games last year than the year before and the salary cap went down by a million dollars because there were so few games. That is why this is being proposed.
Cleveland might have lost more than 1 game switching things up, but Golden State was going to steamroll pretty much everyone such that some sort of change wouldn't have done much to the overall games, especially if you make more 1st round series more uncompetitive.

Yeah I don't disagree with you that this may not result in better series, just saying the league losing money on last years playoffs is 100% the reason it is being discussed. This year it could theoretically make for a few better series but that would change year to year
How did the league lose money on the playoffs?  Or do you really mean that they didn't make as much money as they would have liked too?

It was less than what was projected. Zach Lowe and some other prominent writers mentioned it as being responsible for the salary cap being at least 1-2 million for 2017-2018. It's crazy to think about but if the warriors and cavs had some more competitive series we probably have Avery Bradley on the team right now.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: green_bballers13 on February 19, 2018, 11:13:38 PM
Lots of biased Celtics fans here who can’t imagine playing the Lakers in the first round. You know what would be worse? Being a Rockets fan and having to play the warriors in the Western Conference Finals, lose in 7, and watch the warriors steamroll some sad eastern conference champion.

Why is losing in the WCF worse than losing in the Finals? Do fans really like being runners up that much?

I think so. Being in the NBA Finals means something. I can name all the runner-ups since I started following basketball. I don't think I can do the same for all conference finalists.

As a fan, I’d rather not lose in the Finals. 2010 is way more bitter to me than 2009, 2011, or 2012. I know a lot of Pats fans who are crushed by the Super Bowl losses moreso than the AFC Finals defeats.

But ultimately, losing is losing.

Disagree. People point out that Montana, for instance, was perfect in the SB, which is better than Brady's three losses. I think that's crazy.  The only actual difference is that Brady won 4 more conference championship games than Montana. We can't assume that Montana would have won 4 more Super Bowls if he hadn't lost in the playoffs those 4 times.

Lebron doesn't have a good finals record, but it's still better than if he had lost to any eastern conference teams in the playoffs over the last 7 years. Jerry West is highly regarded despite his finals record. Legacy wise, I think it's better to get to the finals every year.

Yeah, championship losses sting, but we always have hope at the beginning of the series, and that buzz is way better than watching your team lose before getting to the big dance.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: GreenEnvy on February 20, 2018, 02:28:02 AM
Divisions are totally irrelevant now. They mean nothing unless you want to claim division winner for a banner. The playoffs are determined by top 8 in the conference with no consideration about division for anything. They should do away with divisions.

Completely disagree.

Isn’t that what hockey kinda did? Doesn’t look any better. I’m a huge b-ball fan and I’m not even entirely positive what teams are in what division (out west), but the structure is important imo. You know who’s in your division and you treat those games with importance.


I don’t believe adding (wild card) teams is the answer, at all. Think about it: more teams make the playoffs than the lottery. That’s crazy. Baseball has 10 of 30, football has 12 of 32, and hockey has 16 of 32. More than half of your league shouldn’t make the playoffs.

Whoever was complaining about to Rockets having to take on the Warriors before they roll the East is hogwash. More often than not the two best teams come from the same conference. It’s never been a problem. Rockets fans should be more upset that their team isn’t good enough to beat the Warriors rather than when they lose to them.

If they want to FIX the playoffs they have to sacrifice games. They simply don’t want to make a better product by leaving money on the table, so they are grasping at straws. Their should be less playoffs teams, byes, and a shorter first round series (best of 5).
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Androslav on February 20, 2018, 03:12:22 AM
Lots of biased Celtics fans here who can’t imagine playing the Lakers in the first round. You know what would be worse? Being a Rockets fan and having to play the warriors in the Western Conference Finals, lose in 7, and watch the warriors steamroll some sad eastern conference champion.

Why is losing in the WCF worse than losing in the Finals? Do fans really like being runners-up that much?

I think so. Being in the NBA Finals means something. I can name all the runner-ups since I started following basketball. I don't think I can do the same for all conference finalists.

As a fan, I’d rather not lose in the Finals. 2010 is way more bitter to me than 2009, 2011, or 2012. I know a lot of Pats fans who are crushed by the Super Bowl losses more so than the AFC Finals defeats.

But ultimately, losing is losing.

Disagree. People point out that Montana, for instance, was perfect in the SB, which is better than Brady's three losses. I think that's crazy.  The only actual difference is that Brady won 4 more conference championship games than Montana. We can't assume that Montana would have won 4 more Super Bowls if he hadn't lost in the playoffs those 4 times.

Lebron doesn't have a good finals record, but it's still better than if he had lost to any eastern conference teams in the playoffs over the last 7 years. Jerry West is highly regarded despite his finals record. Legacy wise, I think it's better to get to the finals every year.

Yeah, championship losses sting, but we always have hope at the beginning of the series, and that buzz is way better than watching your team lose before getting to the big dance.
I agree with the response.
The finals appearance is definitely more valuable. It is a remarkable achievement to be in the top 6% in anything, especially in the best basketball league in the world.
Saying that losing in the 2nd round or conference finals is better than losing in the finals reminds me of the bear story:

A bear was climbing a pear tree, but when he couldn't reach the high hanging fruits, suddenly his disliked pears.

The game 7, 2010 finals was without a doubt, my toughest NBA loss to digest. It took me 7 years to rewatch that game. But I really respected the guys for being able to (Doc's voice:) "Hang in there!" despite KG's weak knee and Pierces lost alpha scorer ability.

PJ's 4th qtr timeout words still vividly ring in my head. We were up and like some prophet he said: "Guys, they are the best in the league in blowing up big leads". One of the most underrated coaching moments I saw.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Somebody on February 20, 2018, 06:20:59 AM
Lots of biased Celtics fans here who can’t imagine playing the Lakers in the first round. You know what would be worse? Being a Rockets fan and having to play the warriors in the Western Conference Finals, lose in 7, and watch the warriors steamroll some sad eastern conference champion.

Why is losing in the WCF worse than losing in the Finals? Do fans really like being runners-up that much?

I think so. Being in the NBA Finals means something. I can name all the runner-ups since I started following basketball. I don't think I can do the same for all conference finalists.

As a fan, I’d rather not lose in the Finals. 2010 is way more bitter to me than 2009, 2011, or 2012. I know a lot of Pats fans who are crushed by the Super Bowl losses more so than the AFC Finals defeats.

But ultimately, losing is losing.

Disagree. People point out that Montana, for instance, was perfect in the SB, which is better than Brady's three losses. I think that's crazy.  The only actual difference is that Brady won 4 more conference championship games than Montana. We can't assume that Montana would have won 4 more Super Bowls if he hadn't lost in the playoffs those 4 times.

Lebron doesn't have a good finals record, but it's still better than if he had lost to any eastern conference teams in the playoffs over the last 7 years. Jerry West is highly regarded despite his finals record. Legacy wise, I think it's better to get to the finals every year.

Yeah, championship losses sting, but we always have hope at the beginning of the series, and that buzz is way better than watching your team lose before getting to the big dance.
I agree with the response.
The finals appearance is definitely more valuable. It is a remarkable achievement to be in the top 6% in anything, especially in the best basketball league in the world.
Saying that losing in the 2nd round or conference finals is better than losing in the finals reminds me of the bear story:

A bear was climbing a pear tree, but when he couldn't reach the high hanging fruits, suddenly his disliked pears.

The game 7, 2010 finals was without a doubt, my toughest NBA loss to digest. It took me 7 years to rewatch that game. But I really respected the guys for being able to (Doc's voice:) "Hang in there!" despite KG's weak knee and Pierces lost alpha scorer ability.

PJ's 4th qtr timeout words still vividly ring in my head. We were up and like some prophet he said: "Guys, they are the best in the league in blowing up big leads". One of the most underrated coaching moments I saw.
It should be "guys the Lakers are the best 8 on 5 team in the 4th quarter"
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Androslav on February 20, 2018, 06:54:58 AM
Lots of biased Celtics fans here who can’t imagine playing the Lakers in the first round. You know what would be worse? Being a Rockets fan and having to play the warriors in the Western Conference Finals, lose in 7, and watch the warriors steamroll some sad eastern conference champion.

Why is losing in the WCF worse than losing in the Finals? Do fans really like being runners-up that much?

I think so. Being in the NBA Finals means something. I can name all the runner-ups since I started following basketball. I don't think I can do the same for all conference finalists.

As a fan, I’d rather not lose in the Finals. 2010 is way more bitter to me than 2009, 2011, or 2012. I know a lot of Pats fans who are crushed by the Super Bowl losses more so than the AFC Finals defeats.

But ultimately, losing is losing.

Disagree. People point out that Montana, for instance, was perfect in the SB, which is better than Brady's three losses. I think that's crazy.  The only actual difference is that Brady won 4 more conference championship games than Montana. We can't assume that Montana would have won 4 more Super Bowls if he hadn't lost in the playoffs those 4 times.

Lebron doesn't have a good finals record, but it's still better than if he had lost to any eastern conference teams in the playoffs over the last 7 years. Jerry West is highly regarded despite his finals record. Legacy wise, I think it's better to get to the finals every year.

Yeah, championship losses sting, but we always have hope at the beginning of the series, and that buzz is way better than watching your team lose before getting to the big dance.
I agree with the response.
The finals appearance is definitely more valuable. It is a remarkable achievement to be in the top 6% in anything, especially in the best basketball league in the world.
Saying that losing in the 2nd round or conference finals is better than losing in the finals reminds me of the bear story:

A bear was climbing a pear tree, but when he couldn't reach the high hanging fruits, suddenly his disliked pears.

The game 7, 2010 finals was without a doubt, my toughest NBA loss to digest. It took me 7 years to rewatch that game. But I really respected the guys for being able to (Doc's voice:) "Hang in there!" despite KG's weak knee and Pierces lost alpha scorer ability.

PJ's 4th qtr timeout words still vividly ring in my head. We were up and like some prophet he said: "Guys, they are the best in the league in blowing up big leads". One of the most underrated coaching moments I saw.
It should be "guys the Lakers are the best 8 on 5 team in the 4th quarter"
Mate, I'm afraid that their "best paint crew in the league" (Gasol, Bynum, Odom, MWP) got the better of our Perk-less frontcourt. It was too much to overcome for us in the end. Offensive rebounds galore.
The Kings vs Lakers as you wrote yesterday is a different cup of tea.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: CFAN38 on February 20, 2018, 06:58:51 AM
Bad news for LeBron...

and for the Celtics

Rather then a total ditching of conferences I would rather see a system where the top 6 teams from each conference make up the east and west playoff seeding. After that the next best 4 fill out the playoffs regardless of conference. These teams can be placed logically using their geography. IE Western conference teams in the center of the country get shipped east. If a year yields 4 coastal teams then extra days for travel should be added into that series. 

* Other more extreme idea would be to make a 8 team single elimination play in tournament for the last for playoff spots. This could make for great TV.

Current playoffs based off of 6 in from each conference and then 4 best

East.

1. Raptors
2. Celtics
3. Cavs
4. Wizards
5. Pacers
6. Bucks

West

1. Rockets
2. Warriors
3. Spurs
4. T-Wolves
5. OKC
6. Nuggets

next 4

Blazers .552
Pelicans .554
76ers     .545
Clippers .536

Geography would place 76ers and Pelicans in the east

First round

East

1. Raptors  vs 8. 76ers
2. Celtics    vs  7. Pelicans
3. Cavs       vs  6. Bucks
4. Wizards  vs  5. Pacers

West

1. Rockets     vs  8. Clippers
2. Warriors   vs  7. Blazers
3. Spurs        vs  6. Nuggets
4. T-Wolves  vs  5. OKC

An interesting outcome of this system would be the benefits of being the 7th seed rather then the 6th if one conference is particularly strong. A fix to avoid any possible late season tank would be to give the 6th seeds the right to swap spots with the 7th if they deem the match up to be beneficial












 
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Roy H. on February 20, 2018, 07:01:34 AM
Lots of biased Celtics fans here who can’t imagine playing the Lakers in the first round. You know what would be worse? Being a Rockets fan and having to play the warriors in the Western Conference Finals, lose in 7, and watch the warriors steamroll some sad eastern conference champion.

Why is losing in the WCF worse than losing in the Finals? Do fans really like being runners-up that much?

I think so. Being in the NBA Finals means something. I can name all the runner-ups since I started following basketball. I don't think I can do the same for all conference finalists.

As a fan, I’d rather not lose in the Finals. 2010 is way more bitter to me than 2009, 2011, or 2012. I know a lot of Pats fans who are crushed by the Super Bowl losses more so than the AFC Finals defeats.

But ultimately, losing is losing.

Disagree. People point out that Montana, for instance, was perfect in the SB, which is better than Brady's three losses. I think that's crazy.  The only actual difference is that Brady won 4 more conference championship games than Montana. We can't assume that Montana would have won 4 more Super Bowls if he hadn't lost in the playoffs those 4 times.

Lebron doesn't have a good finals record, but it's still better than if he had lost to any eastern conference teams in the playoffs over the last 7 years. Jerry West is highly regarded despite his finals record. Legacy wise, I think it's better to get to the finals every year.

Yeah, championship losses sting, but we always have hope at the beginning of the series, and that buzz is way better than watching your team lose before getting to the big dance.
I agree with the response.
The finals appearance is definitely more valuable. It is a remarkable achievement to be in the top 6% in anything, especially in the best basketball league in the world.
Saying that losing in the 2nd round or conference finals is better than losing in the finals reminds me of the bear story:

A bear was climbing a pear tree, but when he couldn't reach the high hanging fruits, suddenly his disliked pears.

The game 7, 2010 finals was without a doubt, my toughest NBA loss to digest. It took me 7 years to rewatch that game. But I really respected the guys for being able to (Doc's voice:) "Hang in there!" despite KG's weak knee and Pierces lost alpha scorer ability.

PJ's 4th qtr timeout words still vividly ring in my head. We were up and like some prophet he said: "Guys, they are the best in the league in blowing up big leads". One of the most underrated coaching moments I saw.
It should be "guys the Lakers are the best 8 on 5 team in the 4th quarter"
Mate, I'm afraid that their "best paint crew in the league" (Gasol, Bynum, Odom, MWP) got the better of our Perk-less frontcourt. It was too much to overcome for us in the end. Offensive rebounds galore.
The Kings vs Lakers as you wrote yesterday is a different cup of tea.

The refs totally changed how they called the game in the 4th. It went from a physical game to ticky  tack fouls being called.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Moranis on February 20, 2018, 08:21:57 AM
I think this is more a reaction of last year's playoffs where there were like 2 competitive series during the whole playoffs. I think it killed television ratings and revenue. This would allow for more competitive series during each round and, hopefully, longer series.

Just my opinion on why Silver's proposal would even be made. Follow the money, guys. This has nothing to do with fairness.

I hate the idea. Just keep it like it is.

Not sure I follow that logic (I know you’re not necessarily saying it’s your logic, but the league’s). If the series weren’t “competitive” (I’m assuming that means series that went to 6-7 games) the seeding doesn’t really impact that. Eventually the better, i.e. winning, teams will ultimately face each other in later rounds.

If teams in rounds 2 and 3 are still sweeping opponents it just means there are a lot of different levels of quality in the league. Perhaps four different tiers amongst the playoff teams.
In the 1st round the 8-9 series, the 7-10 series and the 6-11 series would be very competitive. In the next round the competition ramps up with all series being competitive. Then of course the Final 4 would hopefully for the NBA jave the best 4 teams in the league. But I think this format might give the league mpre 6-7 game series and then, more advertising revenue and ratings.
except the first round series by and large were competitive last year.  Only GS and Cleveland steamrolled teams but most series were quite good.  I mean every other eastern 1st round went 6, the other western series went 5, 6, and 7.  The other conference semis went 6 and 7.  If anything changing the seeding will make that all wotse not better.

I think there was 10 less playoff games last year than the year before and the salary cap went down by a million dollars because there were so few games. That is why this is being proposed.
Cleveland might have lost more than 1 game switching things up, but Golden State was going to steamroll pretty much everyone such that some sort of change wouldn't have done much to the overall games, especially if you make more 1st round series more uncompetitive.

Yeah I don't disagree with you that this may not result in better series, just saying the league losing money on last years playoffs is 100% the reason it is being discussed. This year it could theoretically make for a few better series but that would change year to year
I just don't buy that this fix would solve that.  Looking at last year's playoffs.

1 GS . 16* POR (this is the only actual matchup - GS in 4)
2 SAS v. 15* CHI
3 HOU v. 14 IND
4 BOS v. 13 MIL
5* CLE v. 12* MEM
6* LAC v. 11* ATL
7* TOR v. 10 OKC
8* UTA v. 9 WAS
17* MIA

Obviously tie breakers come into play here (the stars are all the same record for that seeding range), but whatever the potential seedings (I just put them in order that made sense based on last years seedings and going every other east to west), I just don't see those matchups as so much better or creating much better matchups in any real round.  In fact, I think those matchups would have actually led to less overall games.

Assuming the top seeds all advance that makes the 2nd round
GS v. UTA
SAS v. TOR
HOU v. LAC
BOS v. CLE

GS swept Utah and Cleveland beat Boston in 5.  I think Houston beats the Clippers in no more than 5 games, leaving just San Antonio and Toronto as the only possible good series.

The Semis would be
GS v. CLE
SAS v. HOU

Those were actual series, GS won in 5 and SAS won in 6.

The Finals would be GS v. SAS, which was a 4 game sweep for GS (though maybe Kawhi doesn't get hurt and it is a better series).

There really is no point in eliminating the conferences for seeding if you aren't going to eliminate the conferences for determining the actual teams that make the playoffs, and given the imbalance in the conferences, that isn't fair to the teams in the tougher conference i.e. the West, unless there is a significant change to scheduling (so like they expand the regular season to 87 games and just play every team 3 times). 
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Section301 on February 20, 2018, 09:46:33 AM
I would love to see a "both..and" solution. 

1 - Keep the current playoff seeding method, but reduce the first round to a best of 5 to allow for better rested play in the latter rounds

2 - Reduce the number of regular season games slightly (maybe 70?  games)

3- Add a playoff system for all the lottery teams.  The team that wins the lottery playoff gets the #1 pick. (and all other teams get picks in order of finish as well). 

Adding the lottery playoff  has several benefits:
- Every fan base gets a playoff game
- More games means more ticket revenue for the league
- Less incentive for bad teams to go into full tank mode.  If you jettison all your good players, you end up with the lowest lottery pick

Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Onslaught on February 20, 2018, 09:53:09 AM
Did they NBA care in the 80’s when the Lakers only really had the Rockets to get past and the East was top heavy? Teams in the east had to kill themselves to get to the Finals and the West was a cake walk in comparison.
the East had 2 real contenders in the 80's. It wasn't that top heavy.
Celtics
76ers
Pistons

And tough teams like the Bulls and Bucks. Much more difficult then the teams out west.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Moranis on February 20, 2018, 11:33:56 AM
Did they NBA care in the 80’s when the Lakers only really had the Rockets to get past and the East was top heavy? Teams in the east had to kill themselves to get to the Finals and the West was a cake walk in comparison.
the East had 2 real contenders in the 80's. It wasn't that top heavy.
Celtics
76ers
Pistons

And tough teams like the Bulls and Bucks. Much more difficult then the teams out west.
The early 80's there were 4 legit contenders for most of those years, the Lakers, Celtics, Sixers, and Rockets.  The late 80's had 4 legit contenders for most of those years, the Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, and Rockets.  The Rockets weren't as consistent as the Lakers and Celtics as a top tier contender, they even had 2 seasons of not making the playoffs, but they were far more consistent than any team in the East (outside of Boston of course), though without the peak of the Sixers or Pistons.

For some further support, by the time the Pistons rose, the Sixers were gone as a real contender (I mean they weren't even a playoff team in 88).  The Bucks were a good, but not great, team at best without a single HOFer in their prime (Tiny and Lanier both well past their primes).  The Bulls didn't become a true contender until the 89/90 season.  The fact that Bucks could win as many games as they did shows just how weak that conference was on the whole.  I mean were the Bucks really any better than a team like the Nuggets.  The Nuggets at least had a HOFer in his prime i.e. Alex English, unlike the Bucks who were led by some very good players, but no HOFers i.e. Moncrief, Johnson, Pressey, etc.  Then you had a team like the Mavs, which was very similar to the Bucks as the Mavs which were filled with good, but not great players like, Harper, Blackmon, Aguirre, Perkins, Schrempf, Tarpley, etc.  Or what about those George Gervin Spurs teams that made back to back WCF in the early 80's, how is that team worse than the Bucks (it isn't).

I understand why we as Celtics fan want to play up the East and downgrade the West, but it just isn't born in reality.  The league was pretty weak overall for much of the 80's.  The Lakers and Celtics were all time great teams, but the league itself, pretty weak on the whole.  I mean have you really looked at teams that were making the playoffs that decade.  Lots of crap.  The 90's were even worse.  It wasn't until the end of the 90's that the league started to balance itself out again and find more parity at the top and more quality throughout the ranks. 
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: wdleehi on February 20, 2018, 12:47:15 PM
Are playoffs ratings a big issue?   



Why not an easier fix?   Shorten the schedule.   In each playoff series, only one day off between games.   


Keep the East and West separate until the Finals. 
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: GreenEnvy on February 20, 2018, 12:51:18 PM
I would love to see a "both..and" solution. 

1 - Keep the current playoff seeding method, but reduce the first round to a best of 5 to allow for better rested play in the latter rounds

2 - Reduce the number of regular season games slightly (maybe 70?  games)

3- Add a playoff system for all the lottery teams.  The team that wins the lottery playoff gets the #1 pick. (and all other teams get picks in order of finish as well). 

Adding the lottery playoff  has several benefits:
- Every fan base gets a playoff game
- More games means more ticket revenue for the league
- Less incentive for bad teams to go into full tank mode.  If you jettison all your good players, you end up with the lowest lottery pick

1- I think the first round should go back to best-of-5. No need to be seven and better chances at upsets in a shorter series, makes it quicker and more interesting.

2- I don’t see how a shorter season makes the playoff stustem any better. They moved up the start of the season to address rest issues. If the season were to be shortened, the only think that makes sense is 76 games (4 vs division, 3 vs conference, 2 vs other conference). Still don’t think it’s an issue that needs fixing.

And 3- this is not a good idea at all. You will see teams tanking to get in to the lottery playoffs instead of the actual playoffs. Would you rather get blasted by Golden State in 4 or nab a top 3 pick? The truly terrible teams can’t get better because they will routinely pick 10+. Who would even watch a battle of the worst and when? Same time as the real playoffs? Terrible product.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: CelticsElite on February 21, 2018, 06:33:14 PM
Fresh off being named MVP of the NBA All-Star Game played in a reimagined format that seemingly reinvigorated the February festivities, LeBron James urged the league to pump the brakes when it comes to potential changes to the playoffs.

"It's cool to mess around with the All-Star Game, we proved you can do that, but let's not get too crazy about the playoffs," James said after Cleveland Cavaliers practice Wednesday. "You have Eastern Conference and you have Western Conference. You have Eastern Conference champions, you have guys from the Eastern Conference that win the big dance and sometimes you have it from the West as well."

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22533730/lebron-james-cleveland-cavaliers-says-idea-re-seeding-playoffs


LeBron officially scared of losing his easy  east way into the finals 
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: celticsclay on February 22, 2018, 01:27:21 PM
Fresh off being named MVP of the NBA All-Star Game played in a reimagined format that seemingly reinvigorated the February festivities, LeBron James urged the league to pump the brakes when it comes to potential changes to the playoffs.

"It's cool to mess around with the All-Star Game, we proved you can do that, but let's not get too crazy about the playoffs," James said after Cleveland Cavaliers practice Wednesday. "You have Eastern Conference and you have Western Conference. You have Eastern Conference champions, you have guys from the Eastern Conference that win the big dance and sometimes you have it from the West as well."

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22533730/lebron-james-cleveland-cavaliers-says-idea-re-seeding-playoffs


LeBron officially scared of losing his easy  east way into the finals

Yea.. Lebron should have probably just kept quiet on this one. Even if it wouldn't actually work out that way in reality, the fact that he has a losing record in the finals and is 7-0 in the ECF recently really makes this look like a cowardly statement .
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Timdawgg on February 22, 2018, 01:55:29 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWVUHNUW4AESYRD?format=jpg)
Whoa...man that would stink.. To have a chance at a Championship the Celts would have to face the Blazers, Beat the Cavs, Beat the Rockets, just to get to the Warriors..that would be the most challenging impossible championship run you could ever create...Meanwhile the Warriors would have the Pelicans, TWolves and maybe the Spurs...that is a cakewalk for them...
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: PhoSita on February 22, 2018, 01:56:32 PM
The Blazers would be a fun opponent in round one, though.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: nickagneta on February 22, 2018, 02:14:53 PM
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: KGs Knee on February 22, 2018, 02:21:53 PM
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

I actually really like this idea. That's 2 additional teams per conference that have something to play for.

I think they might need to go back to a best of five first round series format with that, though, unless they plan on dragging out the season even longer.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: PhoSita on February 22, 2018, 02:22:09 PM
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

Sounds like a kind of watered-down version of what Bill Simmons has talked about for years.

I like the idea of a play-in tournament, if it means the regular season gets shortened.

But I also like the idea of allowing the teams that earn home court advantage in round 1 the option of choosing their first round opponent (except for the 4 seed of course, which would get whoever is last pick).
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Roy H. on February 22, 2018, 02:29:41 PM
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

I realize it’s all about money, but more than 50% of the league makes the playoffs.  Do we really need to go up to 67%? In recent years there have been sub-.500 squads making the post-season. Last year, the two 10-seeds were 37-45 and 34-48. The year before the West 10-seed was 33-49.

How does this make the viewing experience remotely better?
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: nickagneta on February 22, 2018, 02:31:33 PM
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

Sounds like a kind of watered-down version of what Bill Simmons has talked about for years.

I like the idea of a play-in tournament, if it means the regular season gets shortened.

But I also like the idea of allowing the teams that earn home court advantage in round 1 the option of choosing their first round opponent (except for the 4 seed of course, which would get whoever is last pick).
I wonder how it would effect the draft lottery. Do the teams that finished 10-14 in the regular season still stay in the lottery or do the teams eliminated from the playoffs get ranked 10-14 in the lottery? My guess is 10-14 stay that way whether they make the playoffs or not.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: celticsclay on February 22, 2018, 02:41:24 PM
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

I actually really like this idea. That's 2 additional teams per conference that have something to play for.

I think they might need to go back to a best of five first round series format with that, though, unless they plan on dragging out the season even longer.

I thought the idea was a little crazy at first, but when you mention this aspect it makes some  sense. This would definitely decrease the amount of teams that were resting veterans, tanking etc. Some years it would work better than others. This year it wouldn't make too big a difference (the top 10 teams in the west are locked already). The one downside is you could end up with a truly horrendous series. A team like the Knicks or Charlotte would end up as the 10 seed this year. If they somehow upset the 76ers or Heat in a one game playoff all of a sudden you have a first round series of Toronto versus the Knicks which would be truly embarrassing playoff basketball.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: celticsclay on February 22, 2018, 02:44:07 PM
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

I realize it’s all about money, but more than 50% of the league makes the playoffs.  Do we really need to go up to 67%? In recent years there have been sub-.500 squads making the post-season. Last year, the two 10-seeds were 37-45 and 34-48. The year before the West 10-seed was 33-49.

How does this make the viewing experience remotely better?

Well it depends on how you view it. A lot of people probably end up viewing the wildcard in baseball as not really making the playoffs if you lose. It is like half making it. You are not getting a full series or revenue if you lose (the 9 and 10 seeds would get very minimal money if they lose one away playoff game). The downside as I just said in another thread is you could end up with a horrific series if a really bad 9 seed upsets in the wildcard game and gets matched against a warriors/raptors juggernaut for a full series. I can see advantages and disadvantages.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: nickagneta on February 22, 2018, 02:58:41 PM
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

I realize it’s all about money, but more than 50% of the league makes the playoffs.  Do we really need to go up to 67%? In recent years there have been sub-.500 squads making the post-season. Last year, the two 10-seeds were 37-45 and 34-48. The year before the West 10-seed was 33-49.

How does this make the viewing experience remotely better?
Couldn't agree more.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Moranis on February 22, 2018, 03:07:36 PM
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

I realize it’s all about money, but more than 50% of the league makes the playoffs.  Do we really need to go up to 67%? In recent years there have been sub-.500 squads making the post-season. Last year, the two 10-seeds were 37-45 and 34-48. The year before the West 10-seed was 33-49.

How does this make the viewing experience remotely better?

Well it depends on how you view it. A lot of people probably end up viewing the wildcard in baseball as not really making the playoffs if you lose. It is like half making it. You are not getting a full series or revenue if you lose (the 9 and 10 seeds would get very minimal money if they lose one away playoff game). The downside as I just said in another thread is you could end up with a horrific series if a really bad 9 seed upsets in the wildcard game and gets matched against a warriors/raptors juggernaut for a full series. I can see advantages and disadvantages.
But 8 teams made the playoffs in baseball before they added the wild card game.  Big difference.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Donoghus on February 22, 2018, 03:12:36 PM
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

I realize it’s all about money, but more than 50% of the league makes the playoffs.  Do we really need to go up to 67%? In recent years there have been sub-.500 squads making the post-season. Last year, the two 10-seeds were 37-45 and 34-48. The year before the West 10-seed was 33-49.

How does this make the viewing experience remotely better?
Couldn't agree more.

It doesn't but it allows the league to bleed more money in television rights out of its broadcast partners.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: celticsclay on February 22, 2018, 03:16:25 PM
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

I realize it’s all about money, but more than 50% of the league makes the playoffs.  Do we really need to go up to 67%? In recent years there have been sub-.500 squads making the post-season. Last year, the two 10-seeds were 37-45 and 34-48. The year before the West 10-seed was 33-49.

How does this make the viewing experience remotely better?

Well it depends on how you view it. A lot of people probably end up viewing the wildcard in baseball as not really making the playoffs if you lose. It is like half making it. You are not getting a full series or revenue if you lose (the 9 and 10 seeds would get very minimal money if they lose one away playoff game). The downside as I just said in another thread is you could end up with a horrific series if a really bad 9 seed upsets in the wildcard game and gets matched against a warriors/raptors juggernaut for a full series. I can see advantages and disadvantages.
But 8 teams made the playoffs in baseball before they added the wild card game.  Big difference.

I agree with you that worse teams would make it in basketball compared to baseball based on the sheer number of teams. That being said, you could view these playoff games as not real playoff games (i would) and it seems more palatable to me.
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Roy H. on February 22, 2018, 03:18:52 PM
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

I realize it’s all about money, but more than 50% of the league makes the playoffs.  Do we really need to go up to 67%? In recent years there have been sub-.500 squads making the post-season. Last year, the two 10-seeds were 37-45 and 34-48. The year before the West 10-seed was 33-49.

How does this make the viewing experience remotely better?
Couldn't agree more.

It doesn't but it allows the league to bleed more money in television rights out of its broadcast partners.

At some part those broadcasters will ask if it’s really worth it.  Is it worth spendings millions to show bad basketball nobody will watch, while at the same time lengthening the playoffs and adding to viewer fatigue?
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Moranis on February 22, 2018, 03:20:58 PM
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

I realize it’s all about money, but more than 50% of the league makes the playoffs.  Do we really need to go up to 67%? In recent years there have been sub-.500 squads making the post-season. Last year, the two 10-seeds were 37-45 and 34-48. The year before the West 10-seed was 33-49.

How does this make the viewing experience remotely better?
Couldn't agree more.

It doesn't but it allows the league to bleed more money in television rights out of its broadcast partners.

At some part those broadcasters will ask if it’s really worth it.  Is it worth spendings millions to show bad basketball nobody will watch, while at the same time lengthening the playoffs and adding to viewer fatigue?
If they cut the 1st round to 5 game series, that would solve some of the issues you are talking about. 

I just don't see why anyone would want bad teams in the playoffs.  and let's be real, the 10th seed is quite often a bad team (I mean sometimes the 8th seed as is is a bad team).
Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: chiken Green on February 22, 2018, 03:33:55 PM
This is actually a good thing I think.

*We were an embarrassment last year in the ECF (1 win ((when our star was not playing))
*The Cavs were smoked by the Champs 2 out of the last 3 years... (Fewer games, fewer commercials, less money made for TV)
*Next year The Easts main Attraction "Lebron" is probably taking his talents out West, which would really make the East look even less appetizing to the casual fan than it does right now...
*The NBA charges more money for Playoff games, but with the East being nearly devoid of Superstar Talent, how appealing are those games to investors...
*The league needs to do something to help the competitive balance since they cant stop players from going where they want...
And since the road to the Championship would be random year after year it might attract a few more Marquee players to actually play in the East...   

Title: Re: Silver proposes possible Playoff seeding change
Post by: Donoghus on February 22, 2018, 04:00:59 PM
Apparently now the NBA is discussing a play in round of games.

Quote
The play-in proposal that has generated the most discussion, according to several sources: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth, and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game nabbing the seventh spot, sources say. Meanwhile, the ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-versus-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/22542306/zach-lowe-real-possibility-nba-playoffs-play-tournament

So basically make the 7th and 8th seeds more tired so they can then get destroyed by the 1 and 2 seed.

I realize it’s all about money, but more than 50% of the league makes the playoffs.  Do we really need to go up to 67%? In recent years there have been sub-.500 squads making the post-season. Last year, the two 10-seeds were 37-45 and 34-48. The year before the West 10-seed was 33-49.

How does this make the viewing experience remotely better?
Couldn't agree more.

It doesn't but it allows the league to bleed more money in television rights out of its broadcast partners.

At some part those broadcasters will ask if it’s really worth it.  Is it worth spendings millions to show bad basketball nobody will watch, while at the same time lengthening the playoffs and adding to viewer fatigue?

I don't know. 

The NFL added those Thursday night games years ago and, generally, its a terrible product but it still gets viewership and tv broadcast partners to pay an arm & a leg for.

Someone will still pay for those rights.  Whether the NBA makes it part of the packages that TNT & ESPN currently hold or make it a separate package where someone els (Fox Sports 1, NBCSN, or even Amazon or Yahoo) might step into the package, almost someone will certainly pay for those rights.

Live TV rights are still valued.